A Political
Economic Vision for Interspecies Solidarity and Human–Animal Wellbeing

KENDRA COULTER

The economy and workforce are crucial spaces of struggle
and possibility for human and animal wellbeing. In addition to critiques of
harmful patterns and practices, more intellectual and political work is needed
to develop and foster workforce solutions and alternatives. The problems are
political and economic so the solutions must be, as well. An essential
component of such a project and vision are what I call humane jobs which,
succinctly, are jobs that are good for people and animals, and that are
underscored by multispecies respect. In this paper, I elucidate a preliminary
vision of and for humane jobs. The driving questions are these: what areas of work and which jobs benefit humans and animals, and how can more of them be created?
I argue for both the creation of new jobs and employment sectors, and the
improvement of some current positions in order to make them more humane.

INTRODUCTION

Worlds of work are crucial political terrain when
considering human–animal relations and the lives—and deaths—of other species.
Workplaces where animals are present can be violent and oppressive,
compassionate and thoughtful, or something more complex and uneven, as is often
the case. In this paper I combine and extend labor scholarship and animal
studies in order to explore and foster interspecies solidarity, and labor that
cultivates multispecies wellbeing.

For-profit industries producing commodities for human
consumption are where and why the largest numbers of animals are killed and
subjected to short lives of intense suffering. Given the scale and depth of the
violence, not surprisingly, there is an established and growing body of
scholarship critiquing the institutionalized harm which is normalized and
perpetuated in what Barbara Noske (1989, 1997) calls the animal-industrial
complex (see also Twine, 2012, 2013). This concept points to the political
actors and organizations in the private and public sectors that promote and
defend industrialized and corporatized violence against animals. Widespread
pain forms the “necro-economic foundation” of the contemporary political
economy (Drew, 2016).

Such research is crucial as it unmasks and exposes the
serious physical, psychological, emotional, and intergenerational damage being
done to animals, how human workers and public health are simultaneously
endangered, and how industries like animal agriculture are also among the
leading causes of climate change. Proper description of the harm wrought in the
pursuit of animal-derived commodities and its multispecies effects is beyond
the scope of this paper, and is aptly provided by many scholars (see, for
example, Baran, Rogelberg, & Clausen, 2016; Fitzgerald, 2010; Fitzgerald,
Kalof, & Dietz, 2009; Gillespie, 2014; Halley, 2012; Jacques, 2015; Nibert,
2013, 2014; Pachirat, 2011; Stull & Broadway, 2013). What is most pertinent
here is that everyday, normalized violence in contemporary exploitive
industries is dire, deeply disturbing, and unjustifiable.

At a practical level, individual consumption choices can
allow people to demonstrate their ethical commitments and condemnations in
important (albeit sometimes imperfect) ways, and much contemporary front-line
animal advocacy work focuses on encouraging such shifts. The increase in
vegetarian and vegan diets seen across the global north, for example, rewards
particular forms of farming and certain food businesses, while affecting the
bottom lines of others. Although the increasingly globalized food production
system poses challenges, the relative consumer demand for food, clothing, and
other products derived from or tested on animals has shaped and will continue
to affect production practices to some degree. Yet there is a pressing and
simultaneous need for more diversified collective political action to bolster
and expand such efforts. In that vein, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka (2015,
p. 53) call for “a wider spectrum of strategies targeting institutions and
practices at all levels of society,” and the economy and workforce are
essential spaces of struggle and possibility. People need jobs and livelihoods.
Thus, in addition to critiques of harmful patterns and practices, more
intellectual and political work is needed to develop and foster workforce
solutions and alternatives. The problems are political and economic so the
solutions must be, as well. Along with condemning problematic employment
practices and industries, we ought to be proposing and articulating
alternatives.

An essential component of such a project and vision are
what I call humane jobs: jobs that are good for both people and animals, and
that are underscored by multispecies respect. I propose humane jobs as both a
direct response to the ubiquity and severity of human–animal harm, and as an
opportunity to envision and cultivate more ethical political economic
relations. In other words, the concept of humane jobs can be enlisted
responsively to solve specific problems, and/or proactively, to envision and
work towards more just, sustainable, and solidaristic multispecies societies.
As I have suggested elsewhere,

In order to move workforces and economies away from
damaging and destructive practices and industries, humane alternatives must be
created which are about helping, not harming others. Some existing jobs can be
strengthened and expanded. Others cannot be, and should be replaced with more
empathetic and ethical areas of work; new humane jobs and employment sectors
should be created. (Coulter, 2016b, p. 215)

In this paper, I further elucidate a
preliminary vision of and for humane jobs. The driving question is this: what
areas of work and which jobs benefit humans and animals, and how can more of
them be created?

I begin by outlining the conceptual roots of humane jobs.
Then I paint a more detailed picture of the fundamental elements of humane
jobs, and argue for both the creation of new jobs and employment sectors, and
the improvement of some current positions in order to make them more humane. I
conclude by contextualizing humane jobs within a larger vision for humane
societies. Potential roles for the public and private sectors and civil society
are integrated throughout. It is humans’ economic motivations which cause the
most harm to animals, and, as a result, most of this discussion will focus on
different and better paid work for people. Yet animals’ wellbeing and lives are
kept front-of-mind; their suffering and their happiness have been and continue
to be prime motivators for my development of the concept of humane jobs. I will
also briefly discuss whether and/or how some animals could be actively engaged
as workers in the pursuit of humane jobs. This aspect is undoubtedly the most
fraught and complex, but I offer some ideas to encourage further reflection
about and action on animals’ labor. More thinking and research are needed in
this area, without question.

In this exploratory discussion, I bring theoretical
approaches and commitments rooted in feminist political economy, anthropology,
and labor studies to the fore. I am inspired by and thus strive to honor
ambitious and transformative aspirations, but in the interest of encouraging
real changes and out of a strong sense of urgency, pragmatic possibilities are
also made salient. I feel a tension about whether to paint a bold picture to
provide a utopian vision, or if it is more useful to grapple with the realities
of contemporary political economies and to identify areas for tangible change.
Therefore here I lean somewhat towards pragmatism but with ambitious goals. My
proposals are imperfect and incomplete, and would always be context-specific
and shaped by different political, cultural, and economic actors and forces.
Overall, I maintain a commitment to forging more ethical paths forward and
recognize the importance of work, work-lives, and lives. My hope is that this
vision will inspire and shape new and more scholarly and empirical inquiry, and
real-world political work.

Conceptual Rationale and Roots

A constellation of material and intellectual concerns
guides my thinking on humane jobs. Most obviously, the need for a
reorganization of political economic relations extends from empirical data and earlier
research on the realities of many forms of labor that involve and affect
animals. I have posited that it is “by understanding both the areas of harm and
the dynamics of hope that we can gain the most thoughtful, thorough, and
helpful insights about how to reduce suffering, improve lives, and foster
humane action.” (Coulter, 2016a, p.7) In existing labor processes and
relations, there are many clear examples of what cannot be ethically justified,
as well as illustrations of what sorts of dynamics, programs, and sectors ought
to be improved and/or expanded, or within which the seeds of more laudable
possibilities reside.

The need for a positive, multispecies political economic
vision also stems from the conceptual, political, and tactical divergences that
characterize much (although not all) labor studies and praxis on the one hand,
and contemporary animal advocacy on the other. As Claire Jean Kim explains,
“most social justice struggles mobilize around a single-optic frame of vision.
The process of political conflict then generates a zero-sum dynamic… a posture
of mutual disavowal – an explicit dismissal of and denial of connection
with the other form of injustice being raised.” (2015, p. 19, emphasis in
original) This insight is highly pertinent to the politics of work involving
animals. Depending on the context and particulars, the “other” group and their
concerns may be dismissed, demonized, deemed subordinate, or simply ignored.
Many labor advocates defend violence against animals in the name of jobs, do
not extend their webs of solidarity to other species, and/or only feel
compassion for certain kinds of animals (most commonly companion animals and
charismatic wildlife).

At the same time, animal advocates may call for the
closure of animal-harming industries yet show little concern for the working
class and poor people who must labor therein, and do not propose employment
alternatives for them. Certain animal advocates even express hostility,
disdain, or indifference towards the people who are themselves often trapped in
these difficult and dangerous jobs out of material necessity. Kim (2015) calls
for a commitment to multi-optic vision which emphasizes inequities and
connections, as she challenges us to see from within various perspectives,
within and beyond our own species. A multi-optic and intersectional approach is
sorely needed when confronting the politics of work.[1]

In a similar vein, the concept of humane jobs extends from
the principle of interspecies solidarity. Interspecies solidarity is an idea, a
goal, a process, an ethical commitment, and a much-needed pillar for projects
of social justice (Coulter, 2016a, 2016b). Solidarity is rooted in empathy and
compassion, but it involves a decidedly political commitment and support
despite differences. As Val Plumwood (2002, p. 200) writes, “both continuity
with and difference from self can be sources of value and consideration, and
both usually play a role....” Similarity is not a prerequisite for caring about
others or for the solidification of ethical political commitments; animals (or
other people) do not have to be like us or us like them in order for us to feel
and promote solidarity. They may even have “different, perhaps entirely
different interests from ours,” (Plumwood, 2002, p. 200) and the principle of
interspecies solidarity encourages us to take animals seriously as individuals,
as social groups, and as members of multispecies communities and ecologies.

The concept of interspecies solidarity is not a blueprint
or a monolithic prescription, but rather “an invitation to broaden how labor as
a daily process and a political relationship is understood and approached, by
emphasizing empathy, dignity, and reciprocity.” (Coulter, 2016b, p. 213) Humane
jobs are one necessary extension of the principle of interspecies solidarity,
however. As Melanie J. Rock and Chris Degeling argue, “many people care deeply
about places, plants and non-human animals, to the extent of offering
assistance, expecting others to provide assistance, and codifying this
expectation in contracts, policies, and laws.” (2015, p. 63) Humane jobs are a
compelling way to respond to developing and deepening interspecies ethics, and
to promote more solidaristic political-economic and labor relations.

The Politics of Humane Jobs

Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the
United States, has proposed the term “humane economy” (2016) to both reflect
and propel growing consumer and corporate interest in alternatives to animal
harming practices and products. His discussion shares the spirit of my vision
of humane jobs and is complementary in some ways. For strategic reasons,
Pacelle commends smaller steps taken by major corporations (moving away from
pork derived from pigs kept in gestation crates, for example). I understand the realpolitik rationale at play, the challenges front-line advocates
grapple with as they negotiate the complexities of political-economic
relations, and why they sometimes choose to recognize initiatives that do not
go far enough or fully reflect their organizations’ or their own goals.
However, the fact remains that humane jobs must be good for people and animals.
In specific cases, killing can be an act of mercy, about self-preservation, or
entangled in a more complex epistemological and subsistence-rooted web,
particularly in indigenous communities. Being killed prematurely for the
production of profit and commodities is different. It is not of benefit to
animals, nor is it in their interest. My vision for humane jobs strives to move
away from killing and to find alternatives to it.[2]

Moreover, unfortunately Pacelle includes little about
workers’ wellbeing or perspectives, the quality of jobs offered by the
employers discussed, or how working conditions could be improved, where needed.
Humane jobs prioritize multispecies respect and dignity. Working people and
their interests also matter. It would not be acceptable simply to stop one form
of harm or violence while allowing other injustices to continue, or to replace
animal harming practices with alternatives that exploit and devalue human
workers. Humane jobs involve higher and more multi-faceted standards. Pacelle
also has more faith in unfettered capitalist processes and interests than I
have. I recognize and consider many roles for the private sector and individual
actors in creating humane jobs. Yet I also envision a more prominent and robust
role for the public sector as a space for policy making, regulation, leadership,
and employment, and as essential to a more humane future.

We do not need to nor should we defend violence against
animals in the name of jobs:

Arguments that labor advocates cannot take animals’
well-being seriously because jobs are implicated are insufficient and flawed,
both politically and ethically. Unionized workers create armaments, from
munitions to weaponry, but this does not prevent labor advocates from speaking
out and organizing against war…. [There is] a long history of critical thinkers
and advocates envisioning societies that do not trap working people into
defending violence in the name of jobs. (Coulter, 2016a, p. 161).

The fact also remains that the industries which are
particularly damaging to and fatal for animals are also bad for workers,
physically and psychologically (e.g. Baran, Rogelberg, & Clausen, 2016;
Fitzgerald, 2010; Jacques, 2015: Nibert, 2013, 2014; Pachirat, 2011; Stull
& Broadway, 2013). If given a choice, most people would prefer a good or
decent job which helps others, or which at least does not actively harm them.
However, many people do not have much choice about where they work. Political
and economic action is thus needed in order to expand and create new humane
jobs which do not harm or which actively help animals, to give people more
choices, and to combat unemployment and underemployment. There is a broader and
serious need for more and better work, period, so why not use this challenge as
an opportunity to grow labor forces and economies in more ethical and humane
ways—to feed many birds with one fruit, as it were?

In key ways, the human–animal workforce challenge
parallels tensions that have arisen between labor and environmental movements.
Good jobs and environmental protection have and, in some cases, continue to be
constructed as dichotomous and antithetical. Yet through the promotion of good,
green jobs and green collar jobs, researchers and advocates alike have sought
to overcome such alleged divides. As the political slogan rightly attests,
there are no jobs on a dead planet, and it is possible to create good paid work
which focuses on protecting the environment with political will and strategic
thinking. Insights which are helpful for the development of humane jobs can be
extrapolated from the labor–environmental trajectory.

One important lesson is that working people become
justifiably anxious at the prospect of job loss. Even if the work is unpleasant
and they have an ambivalent or hostile relationship with their employer or the
industry in which they work, workers rely on the wages they earn as the
foundation of their lives, and their identities are often entangled with how
they have made a living, their coworkers, and their shared working class
cultures. This is particularly relevant and evident in coal mining
communities. Political proposals to replace the declining number of jobs in
coal are met with skepticism by many miners for a few reasons, including
because the promised high-tech green energy jobs do not seem within their
reach. Some green energy plans offer what many of us would deem better quality
jobs which should be of greater interest to people who have had difficult and
dirty work all their lives (and often for generations). However, if workers in
the industry which is in decline or being proactively replaced do not have the
educational background or training, and cannot imagine themselves obtaining
either the skill-set or type of jobs being offered, they will grasp onto what
they know.

Similarly, green jobs projects can simply reproduce
inequities, such as those based on gender and/or race, or they can be
opportunities to create more equitable and just workplaces and societies (e.g.
Cohen, 2017). These linked insights should inform thinking about humane jobs.
Proposals should envision and promote diverse kinds of work suitable for people
of different backgrounds, classes, genders, ethnoracial identities, ages, and
abilities. Moreover, there is a need to recognize and enlist working people’s
own knowledge and ideas, and to actively engage workers in identifying
improvements and humane alternatives.

The idea of creating more humane jobs is thus
two-fold. First, more positions and new employment sectors ought to be
developed in order to create more humane jobs numerically. Second, some existing
employment should be improved in order to make better quality work, that is, to
create jobs that are more humane for workers. Quantity and quality figure when
thinking about jobs that benefit both people and animals.

Creating More Humane Jobs: 1. New Positions and Employment
Sectors

To create more humane jobs numerically, new positions and
employment sectors are needed. Two areas warrant particular attention: a)
employment fields that benefit animals, and b) the jobs and sectors that can
directly replace harmful industries. Both are important to a vision for humane
jobs.

a) Areas of human work that involve caring,
helping, and/or protecting other animals should be thoughtfully expanded as
part of creating a greater number of humane jobs. All countries’ labor forces
already include some such jobs. This can include a cross-section of different
positions in cruelty investigations, animal rescue and protection, companion
animal care (e.g. dog walking, grooming), conservation, and the veterinary
field. More humane jobs can be created by growing these types of jobs, as could
job creation in complementary but under-developed areas like humane education.
One way this can be achieved is by purposefully increasing the number of
positions in current programs or workplaces. Possibilities can also be
generated by examining a hole, need, or problem through a humane jobs lens, and
then identifying specific areas for expansion, or ways to develop new programs
or sites which would benefit animals and create paid work for people.
Entrepreneurially-inclined individuals can take up the challenge of humane jobs
and create employment for themselves and/or others.

The potential for creating humane jobs is a strong
argument for governments or cross-sectoral coalitions to envision and implement
new initiatives. Some kinds of work that are the responsibility of nonprofits
in most countries, such as cruelty investigations, could be brought into the
public sector, or deemed worthy of increased public funding to create more
jobs. Such work is normally legally mandated by governments, physically and
psychologically risky (Coulter & Fitzgerald, 2016), and there are
connections between some kinds of violence against animals, and the
simultaneous or subsequent abuse of women and children (e.g. Brewster &
Reyes, 2016; Fitzgerald, 2005; Flynn, 2012; Gullone, 2012; Linzey, 2009), so
there are many compelling multispecies reasons for investing in and improving
this field. Conservation is another area which is normally pursued by both governmental
actors and nonprofits, and more partnerships or greater public investment could
buoy humane jobs in this sector.

At present, due to its location in the private sector, in
most contexts veterinary medicine expands or contracts based on the number of licensed
and practicing veterinarians. Given the growing number of companion animals and
the increasing lengths to which many people will go to provide care to the
animals in their homes and lives, we can expect there to be an expansion of
small animal medicine in the coming years and decades even under the current
model, thus the field will likely grow as an employment sector. Yet the promise
of humane jobs is also an opportunity to consider ways to augment and/or
diversify how medical care is provided to other species. Is there a greater
role for the public sector to play? Some would say that there is not sufficient
health care delivered to people, therefore spending public money on animals’
care is unjustifiable, even if doing so creates new jobs (in addition to
helping more animals). Others would argue that if animals are going to be part
of our families, communities, and societies, then it is not unreasonable to
allocate a small part of the collective resource pool to their care. Some
public money is already spent on animals in most contexts, after all, and some
of it is spent funding or subsidizing industries that do them harm.

If we want to use the public sector to expand veterinary
care and thus create more humane jobs by doing so, there are different possible
frameworks. One is through the lens of equity, and particularly the ability for
poor and low-income people to access lower cost veterinary services delivered
by a modest public system or network. Only in rare cases such as in Cuba or in
specific publicly-funded initiatives are veterinary salaries paid for by the
state, and this translates into minimal costs for animal caretakers. Some
veterinarians in other contexts working within the private sector choose to
provide lower cost care to poor and/or marginalized people (or to work for
nonprofits which focus on wild animals). Some cities and regions around the
world have developed modest publicly-funded programs to spay or neuter the
animals of low-income people or to care for wild animal populations. These
approaches should be studied in more detail and potentially expanded for the
benefit of animals and people, and to create more jobs.

One Health, an interdisciplinary framework which
recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health
and care, also warrants attention (see, for example, Lerner & Berg, 2015;
Mackenzie, Jeggo, Daszak, & Richt, 2013; Woldehanna & Zimicki, 2015).
This approach responds to evidence of the entanglements of multispecies harm
and wellbeing (e.g. Akhtar, 2012; Blue & Rock, 2011), and medical doctors,
veterinarians, epidemiologists, public health promoters, and researchers are
uniting to propose and pursue various practical linkages and action plans
(Rock, 2012). Yet there has been little political or labor analysis of One
Health so far and more is needed. There is potential to foster a more
integrated approach to health promotion and care which conceptualizes multiple
species as worthy of care and corresponding investment. If thoughtfully
approached, One Health programs and services could play an important role in
generating a range of new humane jobs.[3]

These are but some ideas with potential and there are many
more possibilities. Diverse job creation in these and similar areas would
benefit people by providing more paid work and be good for the animals who
benefit from these kinds of human labor.

b) Given the amount of economic activity that
causes animal suffering and death, there is a simultaneous need to grow
occupations, sectors, and industries that offer direct alternatives. Different
problems and sites can be examined through a humane jobs lens and we can ask:
how could this be replaced this with more ethical practices and humane jobs?
The loss of jobs is a frequent refrain used to defend harmful industries. The
response is not to concede that the violence against animals should continue
because livelihoods are implicated. The more ethical response is to work
collaboratively to identify alternatives that reflect people’s need for income.

The spirit of this idea is already enlisted by some of the
fashion and cosmetics companies producing cruelty-free and animal-free
products, and by a number of the farmers and food businesses growing and
creating food without killing sentient beings or exploiting the bodily
processes of female animals. There are also non-governmental organizations and
governmental programs that help former poachers and hunters become wildlife
guardians, park rangers, ecotourist guides, and conservationists. If people are
given real alternatives and engaged in the process of transformation, many, if
not most, will embrace a more ethical path, and become allies who, in turn,
work to convince others.

Given the staggering number of animals killed in
industrial agriculture, alternatives for food production are of particular
importance. A humane jobs agenda must respect rural communities and take the
wellbeing of farm workers, farmers, and farming regions seriously. There are
many kinds of agriculture that produce food without killing anyone. There are
also urban possibilities in food research, product development, distribution,
and so forth. More humane jobs can be created to grow, develop, process, sell,
prepare, and serve ethical food. Farmers, entrepreneurs, and businesses of
various sizes are already putting this idea into action around the world as
they transition to animal-free products, and, of course, there are many longer
histories of such farms and farming practices. A small but growing number of
animal advocacy organizations are also facilitating proactive shifts as well as
striving to work with people who are losing their jobs in animal-harming
industries. With a humane jobs lens, these efforts can be expanded, improved,
and diversified.

In keeping with an intersectional and multi-optic vision
(Kim, 2015), the quality of the jobs created matters and so does their
distribution. As noted, simply removing one form of harm while allowing others
to continue does not meet the full potential of humane jobs. A fruit,
vegetable, or pulse crop farm, or a vegan restaurant or grocery store is not
automatically ethical simply because animals are not being harmed; human
workers must also be respected and provided with fair working conditions. This
is a reaffirmation of the need for a multispecies vision and for both intra-
and interspecies solidarity. Animal advocates have particular responsibility to
be allies to migrant workers whose labor makes so much plant-based food
possible. Food without killing is crucial, but so too is truly cruelty-free
food.[4]

In some cases, the humane job alternative may be a direct
replacement which creates similar jobs but without killing. In other cases,
comparable but different or even quite distinct but suitable humane jobs could
be created. For example, new humane jobs could be created in rural communities
in areas like green care. Green care is an umbrella term for health care
programs that incorporate positive interactions with nature, such as care
farming, therapeutic horticulture, and animal-assisted therapy (e.g. Berget, Lidfors, Pálsdóttir, Soini, & Thodberg, 2012;
Sempik, Hine, & Wilcox, 2010). Green care is more developed in western and
northern Europe, where care farming in particular is supported by farmers’
groups, local, national, and transnational governments, and health care
organizations due to its social, environmental, and economic benefits. Care
farming can be integrated with preventative and therapeutic health care, child
care, social services, education, and job training. Care farms are diverse in
their approaches to animals and some simply reproduce instrumental thinking and
integrate clients/service users into industrial and exploitive agricultural practices.
Humane jobs could be created through the thoughtful expansion and
diversification of green care, provided that both human and animal wellbeing is
emphasized.

The question of animals’ direct engagement in labor for
people is a complex one. Theorists and front-line practitioners, particularly
in social work and other care fields, increasingly are grappling with ethical
questions and tangible ways to ensure animals’ wellbeing in their workplaces.
Since these fields are underscored by an ethic of care, this fact is not
entirely surprising. These efforts are encouraging, and there is more to do.
Elsewhere I have recognized and analyzed animals’ own forms of labor (such as
subsistence work, care work, and what I call ecosocial reproduction) and the
many different kinds of work humans ask or require animals to do in more
detail, as well as the debates about animals’ agency, subjectivity, and rights
(see, Coulter 2014, 2016a, 2016b, 2017). I have posited that animals’ work can
be understood as situated on a continuum of suffering and enjoyment, and where
it fits will depend on the individual animal, the species, the work required,
the co-workers, the employer, the day, and other contextual factors. At this
point, my view is that it is not unreasonable for some domesticated animals to
be engaged in certain kinds of work, if both the jobs and the labor
relationships are characterized by respect and reciprocity, and if animals are
afforded protections and positive entitlements underscored by interspecies
solidarity, particularly if buttressed by formal political frameworks. Animals
can enjoy and even benefit from certain kinds of work and labor relationships
as members of multispecies workplaces and societies.

Alasdair Cochrane (2016) makes similar arguments, including
a call for fundamental daily protections like bodily security and safety, time
for rest and leisure, and consideration of animals’ own interests, as well as
the creation of formal political structures in labor unions or other
appropriate organizations to oversee animals’ wellbeing. Many labor standards,
akin to those we employ or propose for people, have relevance for animals. Like
Donaldson and Kymlicka (2011), I believe that animals deserve protections from
harmful practices, as well as positive entitlements (freedom from and freedoms
to). They “deserve to receive and to provide care – and they want to live.”
(Coulter, 2016b, p. 215) Animals are members of their particular species as
well as individuals with particular ways of communicating, behaving, and
relating. As we strive to recognize, properly understand, and honor both of
these realities, we can consult ethology, behavioral ecology, and cognitive
ethology (and comparable fields), and interweave other kinds of qualitative,
ethnographic, and sociocultural research to recognize both species-level
patterns, and individual animals’ distinct personalities and preferences.

Building from but extending feminist political economy, I
recognize that workers, regardless of species membership, are individuals with
bodies, minds, desires, interests, families, and relationships. I encourage the
use of the concept of work-lives to explicitly recognize these broader
connections, factors, and dynamics as they intersect with and affect all
sentient beings (Coulter, 2016a, 2016b). Accordingly, humane jobs must include
respect for people and animals before and after formal employment, on a daily
basis and over the course of their lives.

Creating More Humane Jobs: 2. Improving Existing Work

In addition to creating more jobs numerically, there are
some existing jobs that meet most of the criteria for humane jobs, but which
should be improved to make better quality working conditions to fully realize
their humane potential. Precarious jobs and good jobs are two ends of a
continuum. Precisely how good jobs are defined varies somewhat depending on the
context, but normally includes material elements like fair and reliable pay and
some tangible workplace benefits, along with experiential factors like feeling
respected or even proud of your work. For some, definitions of good jobs also
include relative autonomy, union protection, and/or possibilities for upward
mobility. In contrast, precarious jobs are characterized by low pay, erratic
hours, few, if any, benefits, and job insecurity. They usually mean both social
and economic devaluation.

The employment areas discussed above within which
people care for, protect, and/or help animals warrant consideration for a
numerical expansion of jobs, but there is also work to be done to improve many
of the occupations therein. As is true of human-focused workers in care and
social service sectors in particular (e.g. Baines, 2011), people working for
animals, particularly in nonprofits, are commonly motivated by a commitment to
the animals and are often willing to do work for free or for minimal pay under
trying conditions as a result. The material reality is that, at present, many
animal-assisting organizations would not function without the unpaid or
minimally-paid labor of passionate people. Doing work that makes a difference
is undoubtedly important and laudable, but it is not a substitute for economic
security, and working for animals should not have to mean extensive
self-sacrifice. In certain cases, there may be potential to turn some current
unpaid and volunteer positions into humane jobs. The prospects will greatly
depend on the context and specifics. With organizational restructuring, or new
or greater public sector investment or targeted volunteer grants, there are
some possibilities.[5]

Indeed, there are clear connections between the number of
jobs and the quality of jobs. If people in animal care sectors, cruelty
investigations, and so on, feel materially and experientially respected and are
working in the most efficacious ways, they benefit from a positive working
life, but so too do animals. Moreover, if there are more people employed in
jobs that help other species, even more animals benefit. The challenge is thus
to ensure that these positions are both good jobs for people, and that that
there are more of them, so that a larger number of animals can be reached, to
ensure that workloads are of a reasonable size to facilitate the provisioning
of proper care, and to facilitate a higher quality working experience.

Some human-focused care workers engage in what Linda
Briskin (2013) calls the “politicization of caring” as they seek to directly
link the quality of their working conditions to the quality of care that can be
provided. Front-line animal workers and their allies could employ this same
principle to foster greater support for the people whose working conditions
directly affect animals. There is also a need to challenge the perception that
nonprofits which allocate a portion or even a sizeable portion of donated funds
to salaries are somehow detracting from animal care or not worthy of support.
If people can secure a decent living, they are more likely to stay with the
organization and thus provide quality and continuity of care. Whatever the
organization’s emphases and particular ways of helping and caring for animals,
labor makes them possible. It is disproportionately women who are employed in
such occupations, and racialized workers are more often responsible for the
“dirty work” and more emotionally and physically trying tasks (see, for
example, Collard, 2014; Parreñas, 2012; Sanders, 2010; Taylor, 2010). These
gendered and intersectional factors provide further motivation for improving
working conditions.

Unionization is one of the primary strategies workers use
to improve their working conditions. Outside of Scandinavian and Nordic
countries, many, if not most, people who work for animals are not unionized.
People working with/for animals may eschew political action intended to improve
their working conditions out of a perception that it may negatively impact the
animals, whether this is true or not (Miller, 2008). Many animal-centered
workplaces are also smaller and geographically scattered. Workplaces of this
kind are less likely to be unionized whether animals are present or not.
Moreover, most unions have concentrated their organizing efforts on
human-focused workplaces, although some represent workers in industries that
harm animals, like slaughterhouses.

As a result, some labor unions may not support calls for
humane jobs and will instead work to defend their existing members in such
industries. Others will understand the need to foster interspecies solidarity,
and may see a parallel between the history of the labor–environmental questions
and labor–animal issues. Unionization as a strategy for improving workplace
quality may or may not take root in more animal workplaces, but it is an option
for workers interested in using conventional labor relations tools to
self-advocate, and more unions may start to take animal workers seriously or
could be encouraged to do so. My hope is that they will play a positive role in
the promotion of humane jobs. In 2016, Kommunal, the municipal workers’ union
in Sweden and the country’s largest, organized a seminar specifically to
discuss the wellbeing of animals involved in the care sector, a promising first
step.

A growing number of corporate leaders and entrepreneurs
are seeing the potential and need for more ethical economic actions, whether
they are motivated by concern for other species and/or their own profits. It
would be a significant disappointment and lost opportunity if more labor unions
did not recognize the harm being done to other sentient beings and the need for
alternatives, and the growing interest in animals’ wellbeing among their own
members, potential future members, and in societies more broadly. Labor unions
are advocates for social progress and justice. “Genuine human and social
progress cannot be based on the suffering of others, period. A just and caring
society cannot be created on a mass, unmarked animal graveyard.” (Coulter,
2016a, p. 162)

In the areas highlighted above, animals are not normally
co-workers or laborers; these kinds of jobs are beneficial to animals because
human labor focuses on helping, caring for, protecting, and/or rescuing them.
Some existing workplaces where animals have been put to work do not have the
potential to become humane jobs and could not be justified, even with
improvements to animals’ working conditions. In these cases, alternatives
should be found. In contrast, some of the work animals currently do,
particularly in the care sectors, has greater potential, and could be improved
in keeping with the ideas proposed in the previous section.

Humane Jobs in Humane Societies

The many opportunities for profit-driven and
not-for-profit interests to create more humane jobs are clear. Both the quality
and quantity of jobs can also be affected by the public sector. There is a need
for new laws and policies, and new programs and services that create humane
jobs. How to fund any such initiatives is a question that will undoubtedly
arise. Revenue generating mechanisms like taxes on financial transactions or
specialized taxation targeting harmful or unsustainable areas or practices could
certainly play a role. Governments can directly fund initiatives, offer grants
or tax credits, and/or help create fertile ground for innovative, ethical
practices by shifting subsidies away from industries like fur farming,
commercial hunting, and industrial animal agriculture, towards sustainable
avenues that will create humane jobs. As always, people who gain meaningful
employment, or whose pay increases, contribute more to public coffers through
the income and consumption taxes they pay. The benefits of humane jobs are
many-fold.

In keeping with feminist anthropology and political
economy, I conceptualize paid work not in a vacuum but as one part of a larger
sociopolitical context. Humane jobs should a) prioritize both human and animal
wellbeing, b) not reproduce existing inequities, but rather be interwoven with
feminist, anti-racist, and other intersectional commitments, and c) be
approached as one part of a larger, multi-faceted vision for humane and caring
societies (Coulter, 2017). My vision shares the spirit of recent generative
multispecies political theorizing that imagines better futures for individuals
and groups, as well as strengthened and expanded political structures (e.g.
Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2011; Cochrane, 2016). I conceptualize people and
animals as social individuals who “have social needs and responsibilities and …
our ability to give or receive these are interdependent and intertwined.”
(McKeen, 2004, p.9; see also Bezanson, 2006; Winkler, 2002) The ultimate goal
is that humane jobs are positive materially and experientially, and located
within a larger humane sociopolitical context and culture. Humane jobs would
fit best with progressive and redistributive political approaches and within a
web of complementary policies and programs that respect work-lives such as
living wages, affordable child care, universal education, etc. The idea of
humane jobs can and ought to be enlisted to tackle specific, localized
challenges in the here and now, but ideally should be interwoven with the pursuit
of truly just, sustainable, solidaristic, and caring societies.

This discussion is an invitation to think differently
about the politics of animals and labor, and more work is needed to refine,
revise, deepen, and further develop the ideas presented here. I have offered
conceptual fodder, key vocabulary, and some practical ideas with the goals of
strengthening and extending theories of work and multispecies relations,
helping to cultivate a positive, forward-looking human-animal labor
scholarship, and, ideally, inspiring, shaping, and propelling both new and
stronger political work. Contemporary political economic relations
significantly affect animals, but they are not natural, preordained, or
automatic. They are socially constructed, and they can be improved and remade,
if we work to transform them.

[1] It is important to note that early animal advocates often employed what we
might today call an intersectional lens, and some contemporary activists and
animal organizations are committed to multispecies politics and wellbeing. In
the scholarly arena, animal ecofeminists such Carol J. Adams, Greta Gaard, and
Lori Gruen, as well as some other critical animal studies scholars, have
consistently highlighted interlocking and intersecting forms of violence,
oppression, and justice.

[2] The term “humane” is used in different ways depending on the context and on the
person/people using the word. It has come to have quite distinct and even
divergent meanings, particularly within animal advocacy and agricultural
communities. My usage of the concept and intentions are elucidated throughout
this paper.

[3] An expansion of veterinary medicine and One Health programs could also inspire
more reflection about the animals who are used and killed in veterinary
education, and the role of veterinarians in caring for farmed and wild animals,
among other issues.

[4]Corporate food politics are undoubtedly complex,
particularly as large animal agribusinesses buy up smaller vegan companies or
develop their own animal-free products to be sold alongside animal-derived
commodities. A larger discussion of these dynamics is needed.

[5]How care is provided to animals, for how long,
and in what ways will also be governed by organizations’ policies. This raises
important questions about the effects of such policies and about structural
constraints on workers’ abilities to shape the processes and outcomes of their
labor. Scholars are reflecting on how organizational practices, even those that
are well-intentioned, affect the animals in such spaces. These issues are
important and are part of larger discussions beyond the scope of this paper.